Download Primary Student-Teachers` Conceptual Understanding of the

Primary Student-Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding
of the Greenhouse Effect: A Mixed Method Study
Ilkka Johannes Ratinen
To cite this version:
Ilkka Johannes Ratinen. Primary Student-Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect: A Mixed Method Study. International Journal of Science Education, Taylor &
Francis (Routledge), 2011, pp.1. .
HAL Id: hal-00721220
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00721220
Submitted on 27 Jul 2012
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
International Journal of Science Education
ee
rP
Fo
Primary Student-Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of the
Greenhouse Effect: A Mixed Method Study
Manuscript ID:
Keywords:
TSED-2009-0114.R4
Research Paper
conceptual change, misconception, science education, earth science
education
w
ie
Keywords (user):
International Journal of Science Education
ev
Manuscript Type:
rR
Journal:
ly
On
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 46
Primary Student-Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect: A
Mixed Method Study
The greenhouse effect is a reasonably complex scientific phenomenon which can be used as a
model to examine students’ conceptual understanding in science. Primary student-teachers’
understanding of global environmental problems, such as climate change and ozone
Fo
depletion, indicates that they have many misconceptions. The present mixed methods study
examines Finnish primary student-teachers’ understanding of the greenhouse effect based on
rP
the results obtained via open-ended and closed-form questionnaires. The open-ended
questionnaire considers primary student-teachers’ spontaneous ideas about the greenhouse
ee
effect depicted by concept maps. The present study also uses statistical analysis to reveal
rR
respondents’ conceptualization of the greenhouse effect. The concept maps and statistical
analysis reveal that the primary student-teachers’ factual knowledge and their conceptual
ev
understanding of the greenhouse effect are incomplete and even misleading. In the light of
the results of the present study, proposals for modifying the instruction of climate change in
science, especially in geography, are presented.
ly
On
Introduction
iew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
Climate change as a global environmental hazard has often been in the media. Climate
change has huge social, environmental and economic consequences. Nowadays we are
beginning to see some of the consequences of climate warming such as changes in weather
patterns and the melting of the polar ice (IPCC, 2007). It seems evident that humans need to
research and implement both global and local solutions in order to adapt to climate change.
Globally, different nations have different interests to participate in the shared community
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
effort on behalf of the climate: some nations participate under the pressure to create a better
future, others escape their responsibility. How individual people understand and
conceptualize complex climate warming plays a crucial role when they try to decrease their
own impacts on climate. Locally, climate change has become an issue for discussion in the
primary-, secondary- and upper secondary science classroom which affects the abilities of
future decision-makers to solve the problems and to make appropriate and far-reaching
Fo
decisions. Several European school curricula and policy document, including those of
Finland, reveal the importance of developing students’ decision-making skills based on
rP
science. It follows that the way future teachers receive their teacher education is not
irrelevant.
ee
A leading objective of Finnish education policy is to achieve as high a level of
rR
education and competence as possible for the whole population (FNBE, 2009). About 35% of
pupils continue on to upper secondary education when they leave comprehensive school.
ev
Finnish teachers are highly qualified and committed, and a Master’s degree is a basic
requirement. Teacher education also includes teaching practice. As the teaching profession
iew
enjoys high popularity in Finland, universities are in a position to select the most motivated
and talented applicants.
On
At the University of Jyväskylä, the core of the science education programme for
primary student-teachers comprises a student study of the teaching of a single science topic
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
for the duration of one academic year. The majority of the teaching provided supports this
project. The project includes content analysis, determining student ideas about the topic,
finding, selecting or creating the most appropriate presentations and teaching strategies, and
drawing up a practical teaching plan. The questionnaires used in the present study were
conducted prior to the project. The present study nevertheless provided the impetus for
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 2 of 46
Page 3 of 46
several primary student-teachers to conduct their own studies of the teaching of climate
change.
In Finnish schools the greenhouse effect is mainly taught in geography classes.
Geography as a holistic science offers many opportunities also in education to participate in
community climate efforts. According to previous studies (Nevanpää, 2005), traditional
instruction has not achieved results that indicate pupils’ understanding of climate change.
Fo
There is still a need for more information about pupils’ conceptual change during teaching.
The present study leans on systems thinking and concept mapping, which are widely
rP
used in science teaching. Bertalanffy (1972) recognized three aspects of the systems approach.
Firstly, systems science deals with the scientific exploration of systems and systems theory in
ee
the various sciences. Secondly, systems technology deals with applications in both computer
rR
operations and theoretical developments such as game theory. Thirdly, systems philosophy
addresses the reorientation of thought and world-view resulting from the introduction of
ev
systems as a new scientific paradigm. The present study draws on the latter, and systems
thinking is conceived as the ability to recognize, describe and model complex aspects of
iew
reality as climatic systems. The important aspect of systems thinking is the ability to identify
important elements of the climatic system and the varied interdependency between these
On
elements. According to Ossimitz (2000), systems thinking incorporates four central
dimensions: (1) network thinking, (2) dynamic thinking, (3) thinking in models, and (4)
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
system-compatible action. Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005) identified eight characteristic
aspects of systems-level thinking: (1) identifying the components and processes of a system,
(2) identifying processes that create relationships between system components, (3)
constructing a framework of relationship, (4) drawing general conclusions, (5) understanding
that a given relationship can impact other relationships, (6) knowing that there can be hidden
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
dimensions that affect the system, (7) understanding the cyclical nature of systems, and (8)
recognizing that systems can change over time.
In this study, concept mapping refers to the technique of schematically illustrating
student knowledge of the elements of the greenhouse effect and the interdependencies
between these elements in order to facilitate meaningful learning (Novak, 1990; Novak &
Cañas, 2008). The technique stems largely from Ausubel’s Theory of Meaningful Learning
Fo
(Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian 1978). According to this theory, concept mapping can also be
the most important tool to systematize and describe the learners’ prior knowledge. Concepts
rP
can consist of briefly presented forms of human experiment and the nodal points between the
abstract and the concrete (Novak & Cañas, 2008). In the present study the conceptualization
ee
of the greenhouse effect is divided in three major entities: figurative, model and molecular
rR
(see Lin & Hu, 2003), which were used to form a category framework for the understanding
of the greenhouse effect.
ev
The present study is focused on finding answers to the following questions:
•
How do primary student-teachers conceptualize the greenhouse effect?
•
What are their ideas about the consequences of and solutions to climate
warming?
On
•
iew
How do their environmental attitudes, gender and scholastic achievement affect
their conceptualization of the greenhouse effect?
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
A review of the research questions is presented at the end of study in order to develop the
instruction of the greenhouse effect and climate warming in geography.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 4 of 46
Page 5 of 46
Previous Research on the Conceptualization of the Greenhouse Effect
The present study examines primary student-teachers’ understanding of the greenhouse effect.
Despite the fact that climate change is daily presented in the media, people’s factual
knowledge and their conceptual understanding of climate warming and the greenhouse effect
are incomplete and often misleading (Rickinsonin, 2001). Many people regard the
Fo
greenhouse effect merely as an environmental problem and not necessary as the phenomenon
that regulates the Earth’s climate and keeps its temperature relatively stable, thus making life
rP
on the planet possible (Appendix 1). Scientifically, the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is
caused by specific atmospheric gases, mainly water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2),
ee
methane (CH4) low-level ozone (O3) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The anthropogenic greenhouse
rR
effect, i.e. climate warming, means that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square
meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space (simulation period 1880–2003)
ev
(Hansen et al., 2005). Climate warming is caused by elevated levels of greenhouse gases,
which contribute to additional absorption and emission of long-wave radiation in the surfacetroposphere system.
iew
Many researchers have found that student-teachers know the basic facts about climate
On
warming, such as the increasing temperature of the Earth, but their knowledge is atomistic
(Ratinen, 2008). It is not only students but also teachers who have misconceptions and
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
misunderstandings about climate warming (Papadimitriou, 2004), and they probably pass
their own ideas on to pupils.
Many studies (Table 1) show that it is common to confuse the greenhouse effect with
the depletion of the ozone layer. Scientifically, the connection between climate warming and
ozone depletion is not strong (IPCC, 2007). However, reduced ozone causes less solar
radiation absorption in the stratosphere, thus cooling the stratosphere. As a result, the cooler
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation to the troposphere, thus in turn cooling the
troposphere (-0.15 ± 0.10 W/m2). The problems of distinguishing between the greenhouse
effect and ozone depletion may be due to problems in distinguishing IR radiation from UV
radiation or even radiation from thermal energy (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1997). Moreover,
primary school pupils think that the environment deteriorates, plants and animals are infected
by pollution, and the air becomes dirty, which prevents heat from re-radiating and therefore
Fo
the climate is hotter (Koulaidis & Christidou, 1999). Jeffries, Stanisstreet, and Boyes (2001)
found that more students held misconceptions in their later study than in the study which they
rP
made 10 years before. Groves and Pugh (2002) found that students held on to their
misconceptions of the cause of climate warming even after instruction. According to
ee
Andersson and Wallin (2000), students cannot distinguish the greenhouse gases correctly and,
rR
for example, they believe CFCs are responsible for the climate warming because they destroy
ozone, and create the ozone hole that allows UV rays to reach the earth.
ev
With regard to environmental education it is interesting that many people link climate
warming with the results of human action such as littering (Nevanpää, 2005). Indeed, studies
iew
of students’ understanding of global environmental problem indicate that the students do not
fully understand what fundamental societal changes (economy, business activities,
On
infrastructure, social institutions, and the environment) would occur as a result of a drastic
reduction in CO2 emission (Anderson & Wallin, 2000).
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Recently, students’ views on global warming and their beliefs about actions to decrease
global warming and their willingness to act have been an important research area (Boyes,
Skamp, & Stanisstreet, 2009). Their study indicates that altering beliefs about the usefulness
of one’s own action is not expected to produce noticeable changes in behaviour. Lester, Ma,
and Lambert (2006) point out that pupils having a scientifically correct content knowledge of
global warming tend to express activism toward global warming more frequently. Their
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 6 of 46
Page 7 of 46
finding that pupils gained better science knowledge after instruction showed the importance
of education.
Based on earlier studies (see Table 1), seven scientific processes are developed and
presented in this study. In the categorization of the responses of the present study’s
respondents, the identification of these key processes was used to discern different levels of
understanding. The following concept categories were used:
Fo
Model
rP
P1: Wave model. The Earth system receives energy from the Sun mainly in the
form of visible light. Reflected short-wave radiation is distinguished from
ee
emitted long-wave radiation.
rR
P2: Particle model. Photon energy is directly proportional to the wave
frequency and a wave consists of discrete packets of energy called photons.
ev
The particle model describes how photons are emitted and absorbed by charged
particles.
iew
P3: Black body radiation. The Earth emits energy into space in the form of
infrared radiation.
Molecular
On
P4: The atmosphere has different abilities to absorb radiation. The atmosphere
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
absorbs infrared radiation by photons, which causes vibration and rotation of
the greenhouse gas molecules. Thus radiation is converted into heat energy.
The molecules of the greenhouse gases can vibrate because of their symmetry.
These vibrations create a transient dipole moment. Therefore greenhouse gases
can absorb and emit infrared radiation.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Figurative
P5: Incoming and outgoing radiation may be influenced in different ways by
the atmosphere.
P6: Different gases in the atmosphere have different abilities to absorb
electromagnetic radiation at different wavelengths. Ozone in not a greenhouse
gases in the stratosphere (UV-absorption) but it accelerates the greenhouse
Fo
effect in the lower troposphere.
P7: The increasing concentration of gases in the atmosphere may be affected
rP
by positive radiative force.
Insert Table 1 about here.
rR
ee
Mixed Methods and Procedures
ev
Three groups (n = 275) of second-year primary student-teachers at the University Jyväskylä,
iew
Finland, were asked to complete an open-ended and closed-form questionnaire. The student
respondents had successfully completed their upper secondary school studies (Table 2) but
On
had not studied science at university level prior to the questionnaire. The present study
scrutinises how participants’ scholastic achievements affect their conceptualization of the
greenhouse effect.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
The questionnaire was administered during initial science classes and no data was
collected prior to the course. The greenhouse effect mechanism was taught subsequent to the
questionnaire. Students completed the questions as individuals, but their anonymity was
guaranteed. In the present mixed method study the qualitative questionnaire was collected
before the quantitative questionnaire (QUAL->QUAN). The embedded design was used in
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 8 of 46
Page 9 of 46
which QUAN data set provides a supportive role in the study based on the QUAL data (see
Creswell & Plano Clark, 2005). Students’ responses of the QUAL data sets were based on
their writings and therefore their skills to write a coherent story about the greenhouse effect
may be affected the results. However, embedded QUAN data sets were played a
supplemental role for the more validate interpretation of the results.
The open-ended questionnaire (QUAL) helped to gain more insight into the
Fo
respondents’ thinking by obtaining their spontaneous responses without imposing answers, as
occurs when using a closed-form questionnaire (QUAN). The latter type, however, enables us
rP
to scrutinise relationships between different students.
The open-ended questions asked were as follows: “What does the greenhouse effect
ee
mean?” and “What is the greenhouse effect caused by?” In the theory-based analysis of the
rR
open-ended questionnaire respondents’ answers were first read and then classified into main
categories and concept categories. Secondly, concepts maps based on the concept categories
ev
were drawn up. In addition, the frequencies of students’ concepts were calculated.
The study by Jeffries, Stanisstreet, and Boyes (2001) was utilized to design the closed-
iew
form questionnaire and nine questions were also added to probe students’ environmental
attitudes. Their study repeated the previous surveys’ procedures, thus increasing the
On
reliability and validity of the study. In addition, some questions used to investigate students’
knowledge about the greenhouse effect were revised in the present study. The closed-form
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
questionnaire also asked about the extent to which students thought they had learned about
global warming from different sources (school, television, newspapers and magazines, radio,
education). The background information collected by questionnaire included gender, date of
birth, matriculation examination mark and the marks awarded for geography, biology,
physics and chemistry in the upper secondary school diploma. The closed-form questionnaire
took the form of statements to which the students were asked to respond by circling the
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
appropriate word: “Right”, “Probably right”, “Difficult to say”, “Probably wrong” and
Wrong”. The items were arranged in three sections: real and possible consequences of an
exacerbation of the greenhouse effect, real and possible causes, and real and possible cures.
The first section contained eight, the second section six, and the third section five
scientifically acceptable statements. In addition, the first and third sections contained five and
the second section six scientifically unorthodox statements interspersed at random. The final
Fo
page of the questionnaire asked students to record how much they thought they knew and
how much they thought they had learned from different sources. In order to compare
rP
percentages, the two positive responses (“Right” and “Probably right”) were combined to
provide a measure of the proportion who agreed with an idea. Similarly, to indicate those
ee
who disagreed with an idea, the other two responses (“Probably wrong” and “Wrong”) were
combined.
rR
Differences between the responses of male and female students, and between students’
ev
scholastic achievement were analysed using KW-ANOVA, as these factors can influence
student conceptualization of the greenhouse effect (Jeffries, Stanisstreet, and Boyes 2001).
iew
Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to combine students’ environmental attitudes
and their responses to the questionnaire items about possible consequences, causes and cures
On
of the greenhouse effect. Three principal components were extracted from the data on
environmental attitudes and four from the students’ opinions of the greenhouse effect. All
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
principal components were varimax rotated and therefore independent. The principal
components calculated from the attitude statements explained 48% of the total variance and
40% of the students’ opinions of the greenhouse effect. The basic idea of PCA is to seek
common variation among the many variables and from interpretative groups of variables.
Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient (r) was used in the analysis of the
impacts of environmental attitudes on the students’ knowledge of the greenhouse effect. The
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 10 of 46
Page 11 of 46
original Likert scale variables were processed by PCA prior to analysis of r, thus
transforming them into component scores on an interval scale. The correlations are not,
however, presented as they are negligible (< .239). Therefore, although the correlations were
statistically significant, they were educationally insignificant.
The study presents the effect sizes, as well as differences in responses by gender. As
the statistical tests were studied by KW-ANOVA, the differences in responses by science
Fo
studies (5 groups) and matriculation examination (5 groups) were unable to be calculated.
The effect size index d was derived by dividing the mean difference by the standard deviation.
rP
According to Cohen’s rough characterization (Cohen, 1988), d = .2 indicates a small effect
size. In contrast, d = .5 is deemed as a medium effect size and d = .8 as a large effect size.
Insert Table 2 about here.
ev
rR
ee
Mixed Analysis of Student Concepts of the Real and Possible Causes of the Greenhouse
Effect
iew
The present study indicates that in their answers four % of respondents wrote that the
On
greenhouse effect is not the same as climate warming. According to these 12 primary studentteachers the Earth is a planet with life because the greenhouse effect keeps the temperature
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
relatively stable and makes life on the earth possible. In their replies, the students suggested
that the environmental problem results from the enhanced greenhouse effect, caused by
emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. However, their answers to P2 and P7 were not
very detailed even if the students had successfully passed their science classes (Table 2). In
the closed-form questionnaire almost every student (99.6%) agreed with the statement that if
the greenhouse effect grows, the climate will change and the Earth will get hotter (94%). This
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
shows that primary student-teachers’ conceptualization of the greenhouse effect is
inadequate, but they are able to choose scientifically relevant statements in the questionnaire,
thus underlining the importance of the use of a mixed method approach with respect to
complex issues such as the greenhouse effect.
According to Papadimitriou (2004), many primary student-teachers confuse the
greenhouse effect with climate change and 51% view the greenhouse effect as being the
Fo
cause of climate change. Nevanpää (2005) noted the same for students. In Swedish studies
ten % of ninth grade students regarded the greenhouse effect as a natural phenomenon
rP
(Anderson & Wallin, 2000). Among Finnish primary student-teachers, the conceptual
confusion of these two phenomena is probably caused by the media, where climate change
ee
has been the concept discussed and not the greenhouse effect (Lyytimäki, 2007).
rR
Papadimitriou (2004) supposes that primary student-teachers have experience of short-term
weather patterns from TV, which has supported their beliefs about climate change.
ev
Greenhouse Gases as a Source of the Greenhouse Effect
iew
Relatively few primary student-teachers (12%) had conceptualized in their responses that the
On
greenhouse effect and climate warming were caused by specific atmospheric gases such as
carbon dioxide, methane and CFCs (Figure 1). The quantitative analysis indicated that many
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
of the students (84%) presumed CFCs to be greenhouse gases (Figure 2). The result is similar
to that obtained by Jeffries, Stanisstreet, and Boyes (2001), but Papadimitriou (2004) points
out that only 7% of primary student-teachers associated aerosols and sprays with the cause of
climate change.
In the present study over 79 % of primary student-teachers thought that (methane) gas
from rotting waste contributed to climate change, but rather fewer (37%) thought this true of
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 12 of 46
Page 13 of 46
nitrogen oxide gases derived from fertilizers. Mixed methods analysis reveals that primary
student-teachers have a fairly good understanding of greenhouse gases trapping more
terrestrial radiation near the ground but they do not understand the particle model (P2) and
UV absorption of greenhouse gases (P4). Therefore on the basis of respondents’ answers their
understanding of atmospheric processes is incomplete. According to Nevanpää (2005) pupils
maybe assume that carbon dioxide as such has a warming potential. In the present study this
Fo
kind of misconception did not occur. Pollutants, however, were also regarded as greenhouse
gases (Figure 1).
Insert Figure 1 about here.
ev
rR
Insert Figure 2 about here.
ee
rP
According to five primary student-teachers (2%), the greenhouse effect and climate warming
is caused by the thinning atmosphere, which means that these students have not
iew
conceptualized the greenhouse effect in a scientifically precise manner (P1-P7), (Figure 3).
Generally, students expressed the view that pollutants, emissions, industry and natural
On
devastation thin the atmosphere. Based on earlier studies, the students may logically think
that the decreasing of the “protective layer” of the atmosphere makes the atmosphere hotter
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
(see Christidou & Koulaidis, 1996; Nevanpää, 2005). Koulaidis and Christidou point out
(1999) that primary school pupils thought that living things are infected by air pollution, and
that this pollution destroys the atmosphere and makes the climate hotter. The primary
student-teachers involved in the present study inquiry have likely misunderstood the
atmosphere as being a homogenised structure where the ozone layer is an essential and lifeprotecting atmospheric component because it absorbs incoming UV radiation.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Insert Figure 3 about here.
Disturbed Radiative Forcing is the Reason for the Greenhouse Effect
Relatively few primary student-teachers (10%) wrote that disturbed radiative forcing causes
Fo
the greenhouse effect and climate warming (Figure 4). In the closed-form questionnaire of the
present study, however, considerably more students (60%) associated the statement about the
rP
entrapment of the Sun’s rays with climate warming (Figure 2). In the study of Jeffries,
Stanisstreet, and Boyes (2001) more than 80% of students stated that global warming occurs
ee
because the Sun’s rays cannot escape.
rR
Because the result analysed on the basis of qualitative and quantitative questionnaires
clearly differs, it is useful to examine students’ responses further. Students who belong to this
ev
concept category emphasized that the Sun’s rays cannot escape, but they did not make clear
in their responses the conceptual distinction between sunlight and terrestrial radiation.
iew
Therefore respondents did not understand the mechanism of black body radiation (P3) and
the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by greenhouse gases (P4). Figure 4 indicates clearly
On
the way pollutants and emissions constitute a layer which prevents radiation from reflecting
out into the atmosphere. This kind of misconception is fairly common among students
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 14 of 46
(Koulaidis & Christidou, 1999; Papadimitriou, 2004). In fact, atmospheric aerosols increase
albedo (see Kuusisto & Käyhkö, 2004). Similarly, rather few students associated the ozone
layer with the decreasing of terrestrial radiation (compare Figure 8). Although many students
correctly identified the mechanism of climate warming, many (53%) also chose the wrong
mechanism, when more of the Sun’s rays penetrate the Earth system (Figure 2).
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 15 of 46
Insert Figure 4 about here.
The Greenhouse Effect is the Result of Simple Causality
Compared to earlier studies (Andersson & Wallin, 2000; Nevanpää, 2005), rather few (9%)
primary student-teachers in the present study simplified the greenhouse effect to merely the
Fo
causes and consequences of climate warming (Figure 5). Nevertheless, quite many students
associated acid rain (44%) and radioactive waste (30%) with the greenhouse effect (Figure 2).
rP
Students in this category, for example, associated pollutants, emissions and deforestation with
global warming but they did not understand climate warming as a broad scientific process.
ee
Myers, Boyes, and Stanisstreet (1999) found that school students’ statements, giving
rR
pollution as the cause of the greenhouse effect or global warming, are more common amongst
older students. Myers, Boyes and Stanisstreet (1999) suggest that the older the students are,
ev
the more aware they are of global, but very abstract, phenomena. It is possible that the
respondents in the present study have studied climate warming at school, and also from
iew
secondary sources such as the media, but their understanding has not attained the level of
model or molecular. It is also possible that climate warming is largely a matter of belief
On
(Papadimitriou, 2004). All in all, climate warming is a complex issue with many negative and
positive feedback mechanisms, which makes it challenging to learn.
Insert Figure 5 about here.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
The Greenhouse Effect is Depicted by Non-scientific Statements
Primary student-teachers’ responses revealed that rather few of them (4%) associated
illogical issues with the greenhouse effect and climate warming (Figure 6). Papadimitriou
(2004) found that very few (7%) primary student-teachers spontaneously associate waste
disposal or radioactive waste with the greenhouse effect. The quantitative questionnaire of
Fo
the present study also indicates that students did not make an erroneous connection on the
one hand between street littering (79%) and rubbish in rivers (65%), (Figure 2) and on the
rP
other hand climate change (99.6%) and global warming (94), (Table 3). Instead, the students
causally associated radioactive waste (30%) and acid rain (44%) with climate warming.
ee
According to Jeffries, Stanisstreet, and Boyes (2001), students may suppose both radioactive
rR
waste and acid rain to be “gaseous” forms of pollution, which may play a role in the
generation of these misunderstood associations.
ev
This category was called illogical because students’ responses did not indicate the
mechanism by which, for example, ice ages and the Earth’s magnetospheric changes affect
iew
climate warming. Thus, the respondents’ choice of expression did not demonstrate the
analytical and scientific power of deduction.
On
Anderson and Wallinin (2000) point out that ten % of students in the upper secondary
school responded only by describing the results and causes of the greenhouse effect.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Nevanpää (2005) found that the secondary school pupils were aware of the causes and results
of the greenhouse effect both before and after instruction.
Insert Figure 6 about here.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 16 of 46
Page 17 of 46
A Greenhouse as an Analogy of the Greenhouse Effect
Climate warming has been illustrated in the media and at schools by the actual greenhouse.
However, according to the present study, the analogy depicts the greenhouse effect
scientifically vaguely (Figure 7). Relatively few primary student-teachers (10%) wrote that
pollutants, emissions and greenhouse gases constitute a layer in the atmosphere which causes
Fo
climate warming. Respondents thought that the “layer” acts like a glass pane in an actual
greenhouse which physically prevents heat from radiating out into space. Similarly, they
rP
associated the statement that the Sun’s rays cannot escape (60%) with the greenhouse effect.
Atmospheric greenhouse gases trap heat within the Earth’s surface and troposphere system
ee
heating up the earth (P4). However, the students did not spontaneously depict the chemical
rR
reactions of the greenhouse gases in their responses. In an actual greenhouse the mechanism
is fundamentally different because there air is isolated by the glass so that is not lost by
convection and conduction.
iew
Insert Figure 7 about here.
ev
On
The Conceptual Distinction between the Roles of the Ozone Layer and the Greenhouse Effect
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
According to the quantitative analysis of the present study, many primary student-teachers
(84%) correctly stated that CFCs are greenhouse gases. Probably students know that CFCs
are the major agent for ozone layer degradation, which confuses their thinking about the
phenomena of ozone layer depletion and climate warming (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1993;
Jeffries, Stanisstreet, & Boyes, 2001). In the present study comparatively few (34%) students
associated ground level ozone with climate warming. Naturally, it may be difficult for
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
students to be aware that ozone layer depletion is harmful to the environment and that
therefore ozone is needed in the stratosphere but ozone is also the greenhouse gas at lower
level of the troposphere. The process of ozone depletion in the stratosphere occurs because
ozone is decreased through photo-chemical reactions caused by certain man-made
substances, CFCs, halons and nitrogen oxides. This depletion is responsible for the ozone
hole that allows more UV radiation to reach the Earth and threaten plant and animal life. A
Fo
number of earlier studies from different countries have indicated that people causally connect
ozone layer depletion with the greenhouse effect (Rye, Rubba, & Wiesenmayer, 1997, in
rP
Pennsylvania from grade 6 to 8; Jeffries, Stanisstreet, & Boyes, 2001, in UK for year 1
biology students; Papaditmiou, 2004, in Greece for primary student-teachers; Nevanpää,
ee
2005, in Finland from grade 7 to 9). According to Papadimitriou (2004), primary student-
rR
teachers have given the explanation that the ozone hole allows more sunlight to penetrate the
atmosphere, which heats the Earth. Similarly, primary student-teachers of the present study
ev
(49%) indicated the conceptual distinction between the roles of ozone layer depletion and
climate warming (Figure 8). A comparatively high proportion of students (74%) endorsed the
iew
statement that the greenhouse effect is worsened by holes in the ozone layer. According to
Boyes and Stanisstreet (1997) and Nevanpää (2005), but not noted in the present study,
On
students have also thought that climate warming is one reason for ozone layer depletion.
Scientifically, ozone layer depletion is considered an important factor in global climate
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
change, due to its potential to affect the radiative balance of atmosphere and the formation of
polar stratospheric clouds. When the ozone layer depletion accelerates, the stratosphere cools
off, because the smaller the amount of ozone, the less energy released from UV absorption. A
runaway greenhouse effect also makes the stratosphere cooler and therefore in the
stratosphere there are more polar stratospheric clouds, which accelerate the depletion of
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 18 of 46
Page 19 of 46
ozone molecules. For this reason it is not unexpected that students may conceptually confuse
climate warming and ozone layer depletion.
Some primary student-teachers (20%) associated ozone layer depletion with increasing
radiation or UV radiation (Figure 8). The latter is true for the Earth’s surface, but students did
not understand that the Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light
(P1). Students appreciated that the ozone hole in the atmosphere is the result of pollution,
Fo
etc., when the Sun’s rays (heat) pass through the ozone layer without being filtered by it.
Moreover, many students simply thought, without any explanation, that the greenhouse effect
rP
is the result of ozone layer depletion. According to the present study, students did not confuse
the scientific concepts but their understanding was based on everyday thinking. The
ee
mechanisms for how ozone layer depletion causes climate warming described by students are
rR
not generally based on scientific thinking. Rye, Rubba, and Wiesenmayer (1997) found that
students often think that the heat from the increased sunlight warms up the planet.
ev
According to the present study and the study of Koulaidis (1999) and Nevanpää (2005),
students associated different pollutants and emissions with ozone layer depletion. Moreover,
iew
different chemicals (Figure 8, n=40), as seen in earlier studies (Rye, Rubba, & Wiesenmayer,
1997), were one of mechanisms which deplete the ozone layer. The respondents’ thoughts
On
about human activity such as deforestation, industry and traffic, along with Fisher’s (1998)
study, indicate that students associated people with the reason for ozone layer depletion.
Insert Figure 8 about here.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Students’ Ideas about Real Possible Consequences of the Greenhouse Effect
According to the present study, respondents (94%) thought that the Earth would get hotter if
the greenhouse effect were to increase (Table 3). Almost all of the students were aware that
the greenhouse effect and climate warming could increase melting of polar ice (94%), change
weather patterns (99.6%) and cause more flooding (94%). More than half argued that there
Fo
would be more desert (77%) and insect pests (64%) on the Earth due to climate warming.
Percentages are similar to the results of Jeffries, Stanisstreet, and Boyes (2001).
rP
It seems obvious that the respondents in the present study have a rather good
understanding of the real consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect because relatively
ee
few students associated food poisoning (12%), heart attacks (16%) or earthquakes (25%) with
rR
the effect of climate warming. Nevertheless, the most common misconception, held by 79%
of students, was that an increase in the greenhouse effect would result in a rise in the
ev
occurrence of skin cancer. The results are similar to other studies (e.g. Jeffries, Stanisstreet,
& Boyes, 2001). It is clear, therefore, that students have confused the greenhouse effect with
ozone layer damage.
ly
On
Insert Table 3 about here.
iew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Students’ Ideas about Real Possible Cures of the Greenhouse Effect
The quantitative data for answers to statements about human actions which possibly reduce
the greenhouse effect were examined in the present study (Figure 9). Most of the primary
student-teachers appreciated the need for reduced use of vehicles (97%), using more wind
power (90%) and the implementation of tree planting programmes (83%) to minimize climate
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 20 of 46
Page 21 of 46
warming. Similarly, eight-tenths (78%) associated energy saving and paper recycling with
decreasing climate warming. Nevertheless, only half of the respondents (54%) thought that
nuclear power is a climate-friendly way of producing electricity. It is noteworthy that onethird was unable to say anything about nuclear power being associated with climate warming.
Insert Figure 9 about here.
Fo
Students’ Self-perceived Knowledge and Sources of Information about the Greenhouse
Effect.
ee
rP
About two-thirds of the primary student-teachers thought that they knew a lot or something
rR
about the greenhouse effect. More males thought themselves to hold correct beliefs about the
greenhouse effect (χ2(1) = 21.196, p < .001, d = .686). Students’ scholastic achievement did
ev
not affect their self-perceived knowledge. According to the present study, students’ selfperceived knowledge and their understanding of the greenhouse effect do not correspond
iew
because only 4% of respondents conceptualized the greenhouse effect in a scientifically
correct way in the open-ended questionnaire. A high proportion of respondents stated that
On
they had learnt about the greenhouse effect in school (67%), from the media (TV and radio,
61%) or during university studies (47%), (Table 4).
Insert Table 4 about here.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Differences in Responses by Gender, by Science Studies and by Matriculation
Examination results
The present study indicates that there were differences between male and female responses
along 12 variables. More of the males realised that if the greenhouse effect worsens,
desertification will accelerate (χ2(1) = 3.947, p < .047, d = .327) and sea level will rise (χ2(1)
Fo
= 8.297, p < .004, d = .439). They also associated more with the idea of the Sun’s rays being
trapped as a real mechanism of an enhanced greenhouse effect (χ2(1) = 5.136, p < .023, d =
rP
.304). Females had more misconceptions, thinking that trash on the streets (χ2(1) = 6.820, p <
.009, d = .374), radioactive waste (χ2(1) = 19.371, p < .001, d = ,717), acid rain (χ2(1) =
ee
12.979, p < .001, d = .552) and earthquakes (χ2(1) = 5.216, p < .022, d = .346) contributed to
rR
the greenhouse effect. At the same time, females more often expressed the idea that ground
level O3 accelerates the greenhouse effect (χ2(1) = 11.011, p < .001, d = .507). The
ev
questionnaire asked for respondents’ opinions on actions for decreasing the greenhouse
effect. Females more often wrongly conceptualised that eating healthy food (χ2(1) = 4.447, p
iew
< .035, d = .247), avoiding use of nuclear bombs (χ2(1) = 17.279, p < .001, d = .570) and
protecting rare species (χ2(1) = 4.991, p < .025, d = .333) would diminish the greenhouse
On
effect. In contrast, males correctly saw nuclear power (χ2(1) = 23.402, p < .001, d = .702) and
recycled paper (χ2(1) = 5.241, p < .022, d = .246) as actions which will reduce the greenhouse
effect.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
According to the results of the KW-ANOVA in the present study, the level of
respondents’ success in upper secondary school studies did not very significantly affect their
views regarding the greenhouse effect. However, the better the matriculation examination
performance, the more likely students were to consider reduced poisoning of fish and water
systems as a result of the greenhouse effect (χ2(4) = 9.825, p < .043). Similarly, high-scoring
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 22 of 46
Page 23 of 46
students thought that radioactive waste does not contribute to the greenhouse effect (χ2(4) =
10.008, p < .040) and that the phenomenon cannot be mitigated by keeping beaches clean
(χ2(4) = 9.660, p < .047). Respondents who had successfully completed upper secondary
school studies therefore held slightly fewer misconceptions about the causes of the
greenhouse effect.
In Finnish schools the greenhouse effect is mainly taught in geography classes.
Fo
Students who scored well (mark 8.7) in their geography courses at upper secondary school
were more prone to see more flooding as a consequence of the greenhouse effect (χ2(4) =
rP
10.132, p < .038). Simultaneously, they less frequently thought that nuclear power will
decrease the greenhouse effect (χ2(4) = 9.641, p < .047). Similarly, students with excellent
ee
marks (9-10) thought that poisoned fish in water systems is not a consequence of the
rR
greenhouse effect (χ2(4) = 10.566, p < .038), but the increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere
(χ2(4) = 12.212, p < .016) and the fact that the Sun’s rays cannot escape from the atmosphere
ev
will worsen the greenhouse effect (χ2(4) = 12.375, p < .015).
iew
Students’ Environmental Attitudes and Their Thinking about the Greenhouse Effect
On
Environmental attitudes were investigated in terms of environmental attitude variables
employing statements designed to relate to attitudes towards nature, science, technology and
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
economic growth. Consequently the question is different from those used by Ratinen (2005),
for example. There were both optimistic and pessimistic statements of attitudes, the
optimistic variables expressing high hopes for a future in which attitudes will be affected by
people’s own activity while the pessimistic variables illustrated the fact that people at present
are passive in their environmental actions and do not think that the environmental problems
are serious.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Students in general adopted a positive view towards environmental attitudes. Only about
2% said: “I do not care about the destruction of nature,” and most of them (93%) maintained
that a built landscape was not as beautiful as a natural landscape and nature would have to be
protected even if it does not increase welfare (86%). Ratinen (2005) found similar results,
with 87% of his respondents totally or moderately agreeing that nature conservation is
important. A parallel result of his showed that 95% of people thought that it was important to
Fo
protect the environment even if not everybody wished to do so. 84% of students totally or
moderately agreed that people have to change their lifestyle completely in order to save
rP
nature. The results were similar to those reported by Tulokas (2002), Ratinen (2005), (see
Özden, 2008). In the present study 59% of students were ready to compromise on their own
ee
welfare for the better future of the environment. When the claim was made that ordinary
rR
people cannot do anything about the state of the environment, 96% of the respondents
partially or totally disagreed with this, suggesting that they understand their own ability to
ev
influence the state of the environment. Improving the environment was a complex process
and for this reason 16% of the students believed that they could not achieve it to an
iew
appreciable extent. At the same time, students did not in general believe in technology and
science, as 51% of the respondents were of the view that these could not solve environmental
On
problems. The percentage reported by Ratinen (2005) was similar. Finally, students (96%)
thought that attention must be paid to the state of the environment.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Males more often adopted a pessimistic view towards environmental attitudes. They
thought that it was not important to protect the environment even if not everybody wished to
do so (χ2(1) = 7.769, p < .005, d = .367) and males did not believe in their opportunities to
prevent the deterioration of the environment (χ2(1) = 8.127, p < .004, d = .415). However,
males more often expressed the view that science and technology can solve environmental
problems (χ2(1) = 8.748, p < .003, d = .448).
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 24 of 46
Page 25 of 46
Three principal components were calculated by PCA (Table 5). Variables
demonstrating that students did not care about the state of nature was loaded (> .5) on the first
component, called Pessimism, while the second component, called Protection, indicated
students’ attitudes towards environmental protection. Variables which indicated students’
attitudes towards nature, science, technology and the anthropogenic environment were given
the name Techno. These principal components together explained 48% of the total variance.
Fo
Insert Table 5 about here.
rP
In order to identify themes running through students’ thinking about the consequences and
ee
cures of the greenhouse effect, the data were analyzed by PCA. All principal components
rR
were orthogonal and therefore independent. All of the statements in principal component 1,
called Awareness, with >.5 loadings related to correct ideas about cures of the greenhouse
ev
effect (Table 6). Thus students thought that wind energy, planting trees, recycling paper,
conserving energy, reducing car use and nuclear power were all ways to lessen the
iew
greenhouse effect. Maybe trees have to be seen as absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and
recycled paper as saving trees, as Jeffries, Stanisstreet, and Boyes, (2001) found.
On
The second component, named Misconceptions, indicated erroneous ideas about cures
of the greenhouse effect. Namely, keeping beaches clean, reducing the nuclear arsenal and
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
protecting rare species would help to reduce the greenhouse effect. These misconceptions are
present also in young school students (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1993), in undergraduate students
(Jeffries et al. 2001) and in the context of the Finnish lower secondary school (Nevanpää,
2005).
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Three consequences were loaded in principal component 3, called Consequences, in
which students indicated that melting polar ice, rising sea level and changing climate are
possible consequences of the increasing greenhouse effect.
The last component is depicted by food poisoning, fish being poisoned in water
systems and people getting heart attacks, named Illness. The fact that students’ beliefs about
the greenhouse effect may result in erroneous ideas about the consequences of the greenhouse
Fo
effect suggests that there may be some uncertainly in students’ understanding of this issue.
These principal components together explained 40% on the total variance.
Insert Table 6 about here.
Discussion and Implications
ev
rR
ee
rP
How do primary student-teachers conceptualize the greenhouse effect?
iew
These mixed methods results demonstrate that primary student-teachers’ knowledge about the
greenhouse effect and climatic change are insecure. For example, the conceptualization of the
On
greenhouse effect as a natural phenomenon that regulates the Earth’s climate is not clear.
From the systems thinking point of view, their conceptualization of the greenhouse effect is
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 26 of 46
more at the figurative level than the model or molecular level. Relatively few students
understand correctly the nature of solar radiation and its mechanism in the greenhouse effect.
The results indicate that students have insufficiently conceptualized the wave and particle
model and, in particular, the transient dipole moment of greenhouse gases. In the other words,
students did not have a good understanding of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect caused
by greenhouse gases, water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, low-level ozone and nitrous
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 27 of 46
oxide. The open-ended questionnaire indicates that students’ understanding of atmospheric
processes is incomplete because some of them also associated pollution with the greenhouse
effect. The closed-form questionnaire revealed the students’ understanding of atmospheric
gases from a different point of view. Namely, fewer than half of the students knew that
ground level ozone acts as a greenhouse gas. All in all, there were no mentions of ground
level ozone in the students’ replies to the open-ended questionnaire. Eight-tenths of the
Fo
students imagined that there was a link between the greenhouse effect and skin cancer, and
they had an incorrect model of climate warming, which involved excess penetration of solar
rP
radiation at the Earth, maybe via holes in the ozone layer. Students incorrectly relate the
greenhouse effect to ozone layer depletion and their misconceptions are related to lack of
ee
scientific knowledge. Qualitative analyse indicated that IR radiation was not usually
rR
mentioned in connection to the greenhouse effect. Instead, according to the quantitative
analysis, UV radiation was confused to thermal radiation. The present study reveals that
ev
primary student-teachers’ knowledge of the greenhouse effect was inadequate. There is a
strong possibility that students have not achieved the three first levels of systems thinking
iew
(identifying the components and processes of a system, identifying processes that create
relationships between system components, and building up a framework of relationship) in
On
their studies in upper secondary school. Therefore, the basis for a holistic understanding of
the greenhouse effect is lacking.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
What are students’ ideas about the consequences of and solutions to climate warming?
Primary student-teachers have a rather good understanding of the real consequences of the
enhanced greenhouse effect. They especially thought that climate warming could change
weather pattern. Some misconceptions were common. Almost half of the students thought of
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
acid rain as a consequence of climate warming and more than half of them thought that
unleaded petrol would reduce the greenhouse effect.
How do students’ environmental attitudes, gender and scholastic achievement affect their
conceptualization of the greenhouse effect?
Fo
Students have, in general, positive and environmentally friendly attitudes towards the
environment. Notable is that 59% of students were ready to compromise on their own welfare
rP
for the better future of the environment and they believe (51.3%) that science and technology
could solve environmental problems. The PCA indicated that the less the present students
ee
knew of the consequences and cures of climate warming, the more they held environmentally
rR
friendly attitudes. The result is noteworthy and this has to be taken into account in science
education.
ev
Females had more misconceptions and they more often thought that non-scientific
consequences such as radioactive waste and acid rain would accelerate the greenhouse effect.
iew
Similarly, females more often wrongly conceptualized that eating healthy food, avoiding use
of nuclear bombs and protecting rare species would diminish the greenhouse effect.
On
The present study indicates that students’ success in their studies at upper secondary
school did not very significantly affect their opinion on the greenhouse effect. However, the
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
high-scoring of the matriculation examination certificate marks decreased students’
misconceptions about the cause of greenhouse effect such as acid rain and holes in the ozone
layer exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 28 of 46
Page 29 of 46
Implications for instruction
Understanding science is difficult for primary student-teachers because abstract processes are
involved, such as the electromagnetic spectrum, wavelength, absorption and re-emission of
electromagnetic energy. Especially, the molecular level is difficult to achieve. Therefore, in
the science class emphasis should be placed on the chemical reactions of the greenhouse
Fo
gases, and a closer look taken at how IR rays are absorbed into the atmospheric gases.
Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that CFCs - but not carbon dioxide - have two undesirable
rP
effects on the atmosphere. Further, the different layers in the atmosphere and their different
physico-chemical reactions should be carefully taught in the science class. All in all, it seems
ee
obvious that the illustrative level of instruction is not sufficient for teaching the greenhouse
effect in teacher education.
rR
It is possible that traditional ways of teaching, which are based on transmission of
ev
knowledge, are inappropriate because they do not help students to use the knowledge learned
in order to understand real issues from everyday life. As Papadimitriou (2004) points out,
iew
demonstrations or local surveys are also inappropriate due to the abstract nature of science.
Therefore innovative pedagogical strategies are needed, such as concept mapping and the
On
modelling approach, in order to teach complex environmental issues such as climate warming.
Concept mapping would be beneficial in initial teacher education because it helps learners to
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
restructure their knowledge of climate warming. Concept mapping, which include positive
measures to avoid increasing the greenhouse effect can help not only understand the climate
warming but can contribute to form conscious citizens.
Science teaching then explores and organises learners’ ideas in order to align them with
scientific views of climate warming. Pupils and students may also assimilate new ideas and
experiences of their beliefs regarding measures to decrease global warming and their
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
willingness to act to avoid increasing the greenhouse effect, as Boyes, Skamp, and
Stanisstreet (2009) point out. However, it should be borne in the mind that it would be
beneficial to base learning and teaching on socio-constructivism where students
spontaneously collaborate.
In university education it would be good to replace the actual greenhouse as an analogy
for climate warming with a systems approach (see Ben-Zvi Assaraf & Orion, 2005) with
Fo
physico-chemical reactions, because it does not function using the same mechanism as the
atmosphere. Greenhouses work primarily by preventing convection, whereas the atmospheric
rP
greenhouse effect reduces radiation loss, not convection. Comprehensive understanding of
the greenhouse effect provides that students understand how greenhouse gases molecules
ee
absorb long-wave radiation.
rR
In the class geography it would be possible to teach the greenhouse effect as a complex
scientific phenomenon which calls for an interdisciplinary approach in order to understand
ev
the scientific thinking of students. Moreover, it would be necessary to take into account the
different localization and distribution of greenhouse gases and the ozone layer in the
iew
atmosphere during geography classes. The fact is that greenhouse gases are spread in the
troposphere, whereas ozone is localized in a relatively thin layer in the atmosphere. Despite
On
the fact that the atmosphere is stratified, secondary school students (Nevanpää, 2005) have
suggested that carbon dioxide may absorb UV radiation and thus destroy the ozone layer.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Key environmental issues must be included in the teacher education curriculum. These
students will one day be teachers of young pupils in school, helping them in turn to
understand the debate in society related to climate warming and to make decisions based on
science. In the light of the present study, however, primary student-teachers do not have
adequate knowledge to teach the abstract concepts of the greenhouse effect. Climate change
is a challenge to environmental educators and researchers because it is an issue that is
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 30 of 46
Page 31 of 46
characterised by, for example, controversy, uncertainly, interdisciplinary and complexity.
Therefore, when teaching, students must be aware of both causes and predicted effects, but
also the uncertainty of global warming as well as the economic, political and social
dimensions of climate change. The educational reconstruction model (Komorek & Duit 2004)
could be effective in developing systems thinking related to the greenhouse effect. According
to the model, the knowledge acquisition process is seen as an active construction process of
Fo
the individual within a certain social and material setting. Moreover, science knowledge
seems to be viewed as a tentative human construction which is relevant also in Ausubel’s
rP
Theory of Meaningful Learning (Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian 1978).
At the moment our knowledge of teaching is still inadequate and research in this area is
ee
needed. The present study indicated that mixed methods as an integral part of the study
rR
depicts more accurately the primary student-teachers’ conceptualization of the greenhouse
effect. Bringing together the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research it is possible to
ev
corroborate qualitative results with quantitative finding, for example, that students’ scholastic
achievement not necessary improves their conceptualization of solar radiation.
Notes for Future Research
iew
On
A possible subsequent area of research would be the study of possible solutions for the
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
mitigation of climate warming (Appendix 1). For example, reforestation and keeping up of
earth’s surface vegetated decrease surface spectral emission. When vegetation standing and it
is articulated with regional and global warming, people probably understand their proposal of
paying for the avoided deforestation or paying for native forest restoration. In the future,
educational research should be focused on teaching and learning sequences for gaining a
better understanding of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Moreover, research in
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
science and social science should consider concrete measures to avoid the acceleration of the
greenhouse effect. Human activities have increased the carbon dioxide concentration of the
atmosphere. The best way to protect the climate is thus to reduce the level of atmospheric
carbon dioxide. Comprehension of the greenhouse effect may encourage the public to take
actions, such changing personal lifestyles, which would otherwise be unpopular.
Unfortunately, education alone cannot solve climate crises. The economic, political and
Fo
social dimension of the greenhouse effect and geoengineering (at university level) should
therefore be considered in instruction. Without adequate scientific knowledge, people may
rP
non-critically view geoengineering – such as iron fertilization of oceans to extract CO2 from
the atmosphere (Bertram, 2010) – as providing a ready solution to the problem of climate
ee
warming, remaining unaware of the considerable possible side-effects inherent to such
rR
solutions, such as ocean acidification (Caldeira & Wickett, 2003; Wayman, (2008). Climatic
warming is, clearly, an important educational concern.
References
iew
ev
Andersson, B & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect, societal
On
consequences of reducing CO2 emissions and why ozone layer depletion is a problem.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1096–1111.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive
View. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O. & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the
context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5),
518–560.
Bertalanffy, von L. (1972). General System Theory. New York: Braziller.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 32 of 46
Page 33 of 46
Bertram, C. (2010). Ocean iron fertilization in the context of the Kyoto protocol and the postKyoto process. Energy Policy, 38(2), 1130–1139.
Boyes, E. & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The “greenhouse effect”: children’s perceptions of
causes, consequences and cures. International Journal of Science Education, 15(5),
531–552.
Boyes, E. & Stanisstreet, M. (1997). Children’s models of understanding of two major global
Fo
environmental issues (ozone layer and greenhouse effect). Research in Science &
Technology Education, 15(1), 19–28.
rP
Boyes, E., Skamp, K. & Stanisstreet, M. (2009). Australian secondary students’ views about
global warming: Beliefs about actions, and willingness to Act. Research Science
ee
Education, 39(5), 661–680.
rR
Caldeira, K. & Wickett, M.E. (2003). Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425, 365–
365.
ev
Christidou, V. & Koulaidis, V. (1996). Children’s models of the ozone layer and ozone
depletion. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 421–436.
iew
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
On
Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2005). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. London: Sage Publications.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
Ekborg, M. & Areskoug, M. (2006). How students teachers’ understanding of the greenhouse
effect develops during a teacher education programme. Nordina, 5(3), 17–29.
FNBE. Overview of the Educational System. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from
http://www.oph.fi/english/education/overview_of_the_education_system
Fisher, B. (1998). Australian students’ appreciation of the greenhouse effect and the ozone
hole. Australian Science Teacher Journal, 44(3), 46–55.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Gowda, R., Fox, J. & Magelky, R. (1997). Students’ understanding of climate change:
Insights for scientist and educators. Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society,
78(10), 2232–2240.
Groves, F. & Pugh, A. (2002). Cognitive illusions to learning as hindrances to complex
environmental issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(4), 381–390.
Hansen, J., Nazarenko L., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Willis, J., Del Genio, A., Koch, D., Lacis, A.,
Fo
Lo, K., Menon, S., Novakov, T., Perlwitz, J., Russell, G., Schmidt, G.A. & Tausnev, N.
(2005). "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications". Science 308(5727),
1431–1435.
rP
IPCC. (2007). The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth
ee
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge:
rR
Cambridge University Press.
Jeffries, H., Stanisstreet, M. & Boyes, E. (2001). Knowledge about the “Greenhouse effect”:
ev
have college students improved. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2),
205–221.
iew
Komorek, M. & Duit, R. (2004). The teaching experiment as a powerful method to develop
and evaluate teaching and learning sequences in the domain of non-linear systems.
On
International Journal of Science Education 26(5), 619–633.
Koulaidis, V. & Christidou, V. (1999). Models of students’ thinking concerning the
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 34 of 46
greenhouse effect and teaching implications. Science Education, 83(5), 559–576.
Kuusisto, E. & J. Käyhkö (2004). Globaalimuutos: Suomen Akatemien Figareohjelma. [Global change: the Figare programme of the Finnish Academy] Helsinki:
Otava.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 35 of 46
Lester, B.T., Ma, L., Lee, O. & Lambert, J. (2006). Social Activism in Elementary Science
Education: A science, technology, and society approach to teach global warming.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 315–339.
Lin, C-U. & Hu, R. (2003). Student’s understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the
context of the food chain, photosynthesis and respiration. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(12), 1529–1544.
Fo
Lyytimäki, J. (2007). Katastrofin aineksia? Ilmastokysymysten uutisointi ja lukutaito.
[Recipe for catastrophe? News broadcasts and literacy related to climate questions]
rP
Lecture presented during Finnish Environmental Education conference, 11.10.2007.
Myers, G., Boyes E. & Stanisstreet, M. (1999). Something in the air: school students’ ideas
ee
about air pollution. International Research in Geographical and Environmental
Education, 8(2), 108–119.
rR
Nevanpää, T. (2005). ”Sillä vois olla jotain tekemistä näitten kasvihuonekaasujen kanssa”
ev
Ilmastonlämpeneminen yläluokkalaisten käsityksissä. [”It might have something to do
with these greenhouse gases” 7-9th graders’ conceptions of climate warming]
iew
University of Jyväskylä. Institute for Educational Research. Research Reports 17.
Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate
On
meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29–52.
Novak, J.D. & Cañas, A.J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to
Construct and Use Them. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryCmaps/TheoryUnderlyingCon
ceptMaps.htm
Ossimitz, G. (2000). Entwicklung systemischen Denkens. Theoretische Konzepte und
empirische Untersuchungen [Development of systems thinking: Theoretical concepts
and empirical studies]. München: Profil-Verlag.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers’ understanding of climate change,
greenhouse effect, and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education &
Technology, 13(2), 299–307.
Ratinen, I. (2005). Fish farming as a local geographical system. The case of Kustavi,
Finland. University of Joensuu, Department of Geography. Publications 11.
Ratinen, I. (2008). Luokanopettajaksi opettajaksi opiskelevien käsitykset kasvihuoneilmiöstä
Fo
ja ilmiön opettaminen maantieteessä. [Teacher education students’ conceptions of the
greenhouse effect and its teaching in geography]. Terra, 120(4), 235–242.
rP
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning on environmental education: a critical review of
the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207–316.
ee
Rye, J., Rubba, P.A. & Wiesenmayer, R.L. (1997). An investigation of middle school
rR
students’ alternative conceptions of global warming. International Journal of Science
Education, 19(5), 527–551.
ev
Tulokas, R. (2002). Suomalaiset ja ympäristö. [Finns and the environment] Helsinki:
Statistics Finland.
iew
Wayman, E. (2008). Seeding the sea. Geotimes 53(8):40–47.
Özden, M. (2008). Environmental awareness and attitudes of student teachers: An empirical
On
research. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,
17(1), 40–55.
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 36 of 46
Page 37 of 46
Fo
Figure 1. Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect (n = 32). Number in parenthesis = the
rP
number of students’ mentions.
ee
Acid rain
Too much street litter
Too much ground O3
Rubbish in rivers
ev
rR
Radioactive waste
O3 hole
iew
Sun's rays cannot escape
Fertiliser gas
CFC gas
On
Rotting waste gas
Too much CO2
ly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
Too many sun's rays
0%
Right
20 %
Probably right
40 %
Unknown
60 %
80 %
Probably wrong
100 %
Wrong
Figure 2. Distribution of students’ responses on the causes of the greenhouse effect.
Conceptual Distinction that the Thinning Atmosphere is the Reason for the Greenhouse Effect.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Fo
Figure 3. The thinning atmosphere causes the greenhouse effect (n = 5). Number in parenthesis =
the number of students’ mentions.
iew
ev
rR
ee
rP
Figure 4. Disturbed radiative forcing causes the greenhouse effect (n = 28). Number in parenthesis
= the number of students’ mentions.
ly
On
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 38 of 46
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 39 of 46
rP
Fo
Figure 5. The simplified causal relationship of the greenhouse effect (n = 24). Number in
ee
parenthesis = the number of students’ mentions.
iew
ev
rR
ly
On
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
Figure 6. The illogical explanation of the greenhouse effect (n = 11). Number in parenthesis = the
number of students’ mentions.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
rP
Fo
Figure 7. A greenhouse as an analogy for the greenhouse effect (n = 28). Number in parenthesis =
the number of students’ mentions.
iew
ev
rR
ee
ly
On
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 40 of 46
Figure 8. Ozone layer depletion is causally related to the greenhouse effect (n = 135). Number in
parenthesis = the number of students’ mentions.
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 41 of 46
Unleaded fuel
Protect rare species
Clean beaches
Eat healthy food
Less nuclear weapons
Fo
More recycled paper
More wind power
rP
More trees
ee
Nuclear power
Use cars less
Saving energy
0%
20 %
40 %
ev
Right
rR
Probably right
Unknown
60 %
80 %
Probably wrong
100 %
Wrong
Figure 9. Distribution of students’ responses about cures of the greenhouse effect (n = 275).
iew
ly
On
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Page 42 of 46
Appendix 1. Simplified concept map related to the greenhouse effect. Boxes drawn by dash line depict some solutions for the mitigation of
climate warming.
Fo
rP
ee
rR
ev
iew
On
ly
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 43 of 46
Table 1. Students’ conceptualizations of the greenhouse effect and climate change.
Conception
Research
Climate change is not understood as a Koulaidis & Christidou, 1999; Anderson
change of radiation balance.
& Wallin, 2000; Nevanpää, 2005
Climate change is causally related to Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1997; Koulaidis &
ozone depletion.
Christidou, 1999; Ekborg & Areskoug,
2006; Jeffries, Stanisstreet, & Boyes,
2001; Papadimitriou 2004; Nevanpää,
2005
Fo
Climate change is confused with other Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1997; Anderson &
phenomena.
Wallin, 2000
rP
Every environmentally harmful action Gowda, Fox, & Magelky, 1997; Fisher,
causes climate change.
1998; Papadimitriou, 2004; Nevanpää,
2005
are
understood Fisher, 1998; Koulaidis & Christidou,
1999; Anderson & Wallin, 2000; Ekborg
& Areskoug, 2006; Papadimitriou, 2004
rR
Greenhouse gases
insufficiently.
ee
The influence of climate change on Fisher, 1998; Anderson & Wallin, 2000;
ecology and society is not understood.
Nevanpää, 2005
Table 2. Respondents’ background information.
%
79
21
-
270
275
258
262
-
M
23.80
Magma
cum laude
approbatur
8.74
8.58
8.01
8.03
SD
4.48
ly
Geography mark
Biology mark
Physics mark
Chemistry mark
Frequency
275
217
58
275
275
On
Variable
Respondents
Women
Men
Age
Matriculation examination mark
iew
ev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
.82
.93
1.28
1.33
International Journal of Science Education
Table 3. Students’ responses to the question If the greenhouse effect gets bigger… True = Right + I
think this is right, False = I think this is wrong + I am sure this is wrong. Non-scientific statements
are italicised. Results given as percentages of all responses. (n = 275)
Earth will get hotter
More flooding
Changes in world’s climate
More deserts
More crop diseases
Sea level will rise
Polar ice melting
Biodiversity will decrease
More hearth attacks
More food poisoning
More skin cancer
More river fish poisoned
More earthquakes
True
94
94
99.6
77
64
89
96
77
16
12
79
36
25
rR
ee
rP
Fo
False
4
2
0
8
6
3
2
5
50
64
10
33
44
Be unknown
2
4
.4
15
30
8
2
18
34
24
11
31
31
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Table 4. Distribution of students’ responses to questions on students’ knowledge of the greenhouse
ev
effect and the assumed sources of that knowledge. Results given as percentages of all responses. (n
= 275).
Something
A little
No
answer
1
0
Total
30
29
Nothing at
all
1
4
10
17
58
50
9
7
8
45
0
46
33
30
36
13
61
9
0
2
1
100
100
100
10
37
31
1
100
21
ly
A lot
On
I know
Learnt from
school
Learnt from TV
Learnt from radio
Learnt from the
press
Learnt from
studies
iew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 44 of 46
100
100
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
Page 45 of 46
Table 5. Varimax rotated principal components calculated from the attitude statements and their
variable loadings.
Attitude statements
Pessimism
I cannot do much to prevent the
deteriorating state of the
environment.
Ordinary people cannot affect
the state of the environment.
I do not support protection of
the environment if other people
do not protect it.
The state of the environment is
so good that is not worth paying
attention to.
People have to change their
lifestyle completely in order to
save nature.
Nature would have to be
protected even if it does not
increase welfare.
I am ready to compromise my
own welfare for the better future
of the environment.
Science and technology can
solve environmental problems.
A built landscape is more
beautiful
than
a
natural
landscape.
Eigenvalue
Explanation of total variance %
Protection
Techno
.731
.600
.566
.549
.771
ee
rP
Fo
.630
rR
.434
ev
.720
.624
iew
1.980
22
1.175
13
1.143
13
ly
On
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Science Education
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Science Education
Table 6. Varimax rotated principal components for students’ responses to questionnaire items about
possible consequences and cures of the greenhouse effect. Only loadings greater than .5 are shown.
Questionnaire
item
If the greenhouse effect
gets bigger…
…more food poisoning
Awareness
Misconceptions
Consequences
…more heart attacks
.554
…more fish poisoned
.548
.696
rP
…polar ice melts
.606
…more changes in world’s
climate
The greenhouse effect can
be smaller…
...keep beaches clean
.515
…protecting rare species
.664
.650
ev
rR
ee
…more sea level rise
…fewer nuclear bombs
Illness
.648
Fo
.577
…more trees
.649
…using recycled paper
.647
…saving energy
.614
…not using cars so much
.504
…more nuclear power
.503
Eigenvalue
Exp. of total variance %
4.066
17
ly
.735
On
…more wind power
iew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 46 of 46
2.715
11
1.472
6
1.359
6
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tsed Email: [email protected]